While I do think B-Games is a real phenomenon - Think Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard or Ninja Blade, I think this is far too lenient on Lollipop Chainsaw.

The game was bad and bland. The idea of overly sexual female characters is hardly new comedic ground and LP just had nothing to say about it.

Oh hey, video game heroines are almost always busty bimbos! And stupid gamers eat it up! Isn't that funny?

No, actually. Not on it's own. Pointing out that something is dumb or silly isn't the act of satire, it's merely step one. Satire should probably say something more. Honestly, Bayonetta had a similar message, but was attached to way better game and actually tried to accomplish something WHILE pointing out the obvious.

Starship Troopers for instance, was definitely a rail against bad moviemaking and bad sci-fi, but it had scathing political commentary, and the final scenes evoke a definite "man is the true monster" element.

Lollipop fails in pushing itself into some sort of commentary on objectification, although it tries; the boyfriend as a head being turned into a literal object and treated so by the game and characters does a better job than the main character ever could. But the game didn't push itself far enough into the absurd and really punch its point. Because of that it feels like it is trying to have its cake and eat it too and feels closer to the movie Sucker Punch than anything.

As a movie it would probably be absurd enough in visuals, props, and premise, but as a game amongst other games that have already moved everything and the boob sliders way past eleven it can't stand out enough.

So I mark it as a failure, and unfortunately just throwing another hot blond caricature onto the pile. But at least you can kind of tell it was trying to say... something. Probably. But it really shouldn't hide behind a shield of, " It was trying to suck", it doesn't quite earn that.

I want to say the film version of Starship Troopers is good Satire. But, the problem is that it has dragged the name of the book down. Verhoeven hadn't finished the book, and I can only guess that he asked some one who had for a synopsis, looked up controversy about it and decided to parody it.

So instead of philosophical ideas bound in science fiction to make it palatable, we ended up with an action comedy that used basic plot points, controversy, and exaggeration to parody it. When I look back at it I also see it satirizing similar films as well.

I just thought it was just a bad Sci-Fi adaption at the time I first saw it, it wouldn't be the first. When I need something bad to laugh at I usually end up watching it, and that's pretty much its legacy for alot of other people I know.

Otherwise... Wait, while I'm thinking it. Are there actually people who didn't realize that Lollipop chainsaw was a joke?

I think it's far to say that it was a parody/satire, though I the length to which it succeeds is definitely up for debate, and that it's status as a parody/satire doesn't defend it from criticism. I'll admit, the So-Bad-It's-Good attempt at parody means bringing Mindless Self Indulgence to score the boss fights (and voice the first boss!) is very apposite, since that pretty much what the game is, mindless self-indulgence ^^

I love bad movies/games and have no problem with good satire, but the problem people have with things like Lollipop Chainsaw is pretty simple: if you want to make fun of the "skinny blonde zero size with FFF bust" stereotype in gaming, do something witty about it, don't just add more to the fire. You can call something satire all you want, but if it is indistinguishable from the real thing it's a wasted comparison.

When the standard all-male dev team says they're trying to fix the gender problem in gaming the solution is always "We'll do the exact same thing, but this time it will be funny, we promise" and then bro-five each other. When a level headed team, regardless of gender, decides to do something about it the solution is "Let's create a dynamic character that makes sense and looks like a real person. I don't care what gender they are, just make them interesting." Even if their game fails to catch on, at least it doesn't go down screeching with stereotypes.

But there's probably the same ratio. Sure there are some movies that are so bad they're good but most movies are just plain bad.Same thing with games; most are just plain bad, occasionally a good one comes out and rarely you play one that is so bad it's good.Maybe if it took the same amount of time and cost the same amount of money as watching a bad movie on cable, I would appreciate "good-bad games" like No More Heroes more. Playing a game is a big investment of time and money; if you're lucky, it ends up being a bigger investment of time. I prefer to hold out for good games.

But maybe it's just my taste. I really can't waste my time on anything by Tim & Eric, maybe I just dislike intentionally bad material.

The Earth Defense Force games do a much, much better job of being B-games than Lollipop Chainsaw did. Which fits in well with the Starship Troopers thing. I'd be hard pressed to name better examples.

Then there's Deadly Premonition, which wasn't actively trying to be bad, it just didn't have the budget.

Saints Row 3 and (apparently) SR4 would also fit in this category. They're deliberately bad, deliberately trashy, deliberately stupid and end up being a lot of fun. Probably the most commercially successful B-games?

The comparison of "Starship Troopers" and "The Expendables" actually depresses me somewhat.

First off, "Starship Troopers" cannot be called "so bad it's good". I hate to pull the "if you don't like it, you just don't UNDERSTAND it" card. But a lot of people who don't like this movie really just don't "get" it.

Little bits like the guy in the chair with no arms and no legs saying "The Marines made me what I am today"... Absolute genius. The fact that the "hero's" IQ is specifically stated to be the lowest of all the main characters (and is tested as such, no less)... The fact that we never ever get any kind of proof that the bugs are responsible for the meteor that started the whole thing off in the first place... And much much more.

Yes, you can dislike "Starship Troopers" on a subjective level. But on an objective level, even if you don't like the satire, you have to admit that it's a well-made movie. The action scenes are FANTASTIC. Everything is perfectly staged, you know where everybody is in relation to one another, and the cinematography is just excellent throughout. The scoring, too, is fantastic. The dialogue fits the tone of the film perfectly throughout, and the cast do their utmost to make this movie as serious as possible. It absolutely benefits from it: there's no "winking at the audience" here. This film doesn't need to give you dumb in-jokes to make it clear where the "satire" is. It's never heavy-handed. This film has respect for its audience.

Compare and contrast that to "The Expendables", a nearly-unwatchable mess. Stallone gives a career-worst performance (and for anybody who's seen "Judge Dredd", that's saying something.) I think it's worse than his "Dredd" because at least then he was trying SOMETHING, even though it didn't work. "The Expendables"... he just goes through the entire film looking bored.

I don't think that "The Expendables" had a "big idea". I don't think any effort went into it at all. The script is frequently moronic, while never being as unintentionally hilarious as, say, "Spiderman"'s dialogue. The scoring is noisy. The editing is noisy. The camerawork is excrutiating (there are five-minute action scenes where it's nearly impossible to tell where one character is in relation to another. This film should come with a health warning: "Can give you motion sickness".)

"Starship Troopers" is the work of a director with a clear vision who, whether you like it or not, executes it damn-near perfectly. Personally I love it. "The Expendables" feels like a classic case of film-by-committee. It's a bunch of stuff thrown into a film because some executive has done the numbers and sees that this is what "sells". It feels as though more effort was expended - pun intended - on the marketing of "The Expendables" than the film itself.

So let's not treat a film that shows as much respect for cinemagoers as "Starship Troopers" as the equal of a film that shows as much contempt for us as "The Expendables".

TiberiusEsuriens:I love bad movies/games and have no problem with good satire, but the problem people have with things like Lollipop Chainsaw is pretty simple: if you want to make fun of the "skinny blonde zero size with FFF bust" stereotype in gaming, do something witty about it, don't just add more to the fire. You can call something satire all you want, but if it is indistinguishable from the real thing it's a wasted comparison.

When the standard all-male dev team says they're trying to fix the gender problem in gaming the solution is always "We'll do the exact same thing, but this time it will be funny, we promise" and then bro-five each other. When a level headed team, regardless of gender, decides to do something about it the solution is "Let's create a dynamic character that makes sense and looks like a real person. I don't care what gender they are, just make them interesting." Even if their game fails to catch on, at least it doesn't go down screeching with stereotypes.

Personally my biggest peeve is when a ridiculous stereotype is put into an otherwise-serious game, and when the devs get called on it, their response is "but... satire!" I have a lot of respect for the humble game designer. You don't need to do this stuff.

Youve missed a point not talking about value. It costs £8 or so for a cinema ticket. Ill chance some B movie schlock at that price. Console games come in around £40, at 5 times the price ill buy something with great story and game play instead.

TiberiusEsuriens:I love bad movies/games and have no problem with good satire, but the problem people have with things like Lollipop Chainsaw is pretty simple: if you want to make fun of the "skinny blonde zero size with FFF bust" stereotype in gaming, do something witty about it, don't just add more to the fire. You can call something satire all you want, but if it is indistinguishable from the real thing it's a wasted comparison.

When the standard all-male dev team says they're trying to fix the gender problem in gaming the solution is always "We'll do the exact same thing, but this time it will be funny, we promise" and then bro-five each other. When a level headed team, regardless of gender, decides to do something about it the solution is "Let's create a dynamic character that makes sense and looks like a real person. I don't care what gender they are, just make them interesting." Even if their game fails to catch on, at least it doesn't go down screeching with stereotypes.

Personally my biggest peeve is when a ridiculous stereotype is put into an otherwise-serious game, and when the devs get called on it, their response is "but... satire!" I have a lot of respect for the humble game designer. You don't need to do this stuff.

I once played an RPG Maker game called Funny Fantasy. The premise was that it was like Final Fantasy, only it mocked it by using established FF tropes such as FF character classes and four warriors of light and all that jazz. Unsurprisingly, the game ended up feeling more like a cheap knock-off of Final Fantasy than an actual spoof.

I think there's an inherent problem with games as a whole that prevents the "so-bad-it's-good" assessment: one thing that's fun about bad movies is watching them with a group of friends. You all get to talk over it, make comments about the bad parts, continue to make jokes about it even after the movie's over, etc. It is essentially an activity that is at it's best as a group activity. There is a problem however when this translates to games. Unless it's a multiplayer game, there will be one person who has to slog through the bad gameplay while those around them don't have to experience it. It puts the player in a position where they're doing more work for possibly less enjoyment, because depending on the game they may have to put more attention into actually playing it that there leaves little room to joke with the rest of the group. It would be like if you and a group of friends decided to watch a bad film, but while they got to watch the bad film you had to work a projector where you had to switch and operate reels at the right time so it seems seamless. At a certain point, you just stop paying attention to what you're friends are doing as you now essentially spend the next 1 1/2-2 hours working.

And this to me is the problem with Lollipop Chainsaw. The advantage that games such as Bayonetta and Blood Dragon have is that while the presentation is indeed silly, stupid, and bad, there's a fun game to be had, so that while you're friends get to enjoy all the bad presentation, you get to supplement the parts you're missing with engaging and exciting gameplay. Further, the gameplay on it's own is enough for a person to play the game by themselves, as there's enough there for them that they don't always need the group to enjoy it with, but the option is always there regardless. Lollipop Chainsaw, because it has combat that is sluggish and bland, makes it a chore for the player, making it seem more like you're working to put on a performance for your friends rather than enjoying something with them. To me, this is why it's a lot harder to do "so-bad-it's-good" games, because the consideration still has to be towards good gameplay, which I feel some developers feel they can relax on if they have the silliness/badness there. That's why I don't like Suda 51's games, it feels like he thought he didn't need to make something actually fun and engaging on it's own because the silly/bad aspects were peppered in to sort of distract the player.

I'm not sure why this article thinks the idea of a so-bad-it's-good videogame is unheard of. Isn't this what House of the Dead Overkill was going for? In fact it seems like most zombie games consciously or unconsciously fall into this category sooner or later. Don't tell me Typing of the Dead was taking itself seriously.

I don't think being self-aware and being satirical are mutually inclusive at all. Lollipop chainsaw is self aware as all hell. It knows what it's doing and it does it with a wink and a smile.

However, it's not satirical or clever at all. It's not making any statement at all. It's not deconstructing sexism, it's not satirizing objectification of women, it's just playing a bunch of tropes completely straight, aiming to be a pure untouched tribute to B movies and sexploitation flicks. A game being self aware and/or parody doesn't excuse it from using worn-out tropes or objectification, contrary to popular belief.

The whole "we're self aware, get it?" thing is pretty much a weak attempt at avoiding criticism in my eyes.

The fact that a person who objectifies women and just wants to play the game to see T n' A and gore can fully enjoy this game for that exact reason, without getting any kind of message or education or meaning from it is testament to the how it's actually not clever or satirical at all.

Now, whether these types of games have a place in the industry is another discussion entirely. I think they do, however they're really over-saturated these days. Seriously, ever developer and their dog seems to think "over the top violence, action, and stereotypes, wow, I sure am rebelling against those darn military shooters and I'm being clever and original about it aren't I?" (No.) The whole "Over-the-Top Ironic Parody Violence just-4-fun-don't-take-us-seriously games" are practically a genre on their own. I don't think anyone needs to jump to their defense, they're extremely prevalent in the current industry and they're not going away any time soon.

As a side note - My favorite Suda game was his least over-the-top and most serious and surreal Killer7. One of my all time favorites, amazing game.

For me, the best comparison point for Lollipop Chainsaw may end up something like 2012; never good, no pretensions or preconceptions of being good, but it's a [Suda51 / Roland Emmerich] [game / film] and so you know what you're going to get; you're not looking for a heartwarming story, you're looking for DENZEL WASHINGTON GETTING AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER DROPPED ON HIS HEAD.

You know exactly what you're going to get with an Emmerich film, so you might as well put your feet up and enjoy it. The same applies to Suda's games.

The thing about the So Bad It's Good trope is similar to Mark Kermode's description of cult film; if you aim for it, you're going to miss (unless your film is called Sharknado, at which point you pretty much can't go wrong). Showgirls is So Bad It's Good incarnate (hey, that man Verhoeven again), a film aiming for depth and greatness and turning out to be... well, Showgirls. Starship Troopers clearly wasn't intended as a parody (and anyone who claims it was is giving it far too much credit), but became one through how spectacularly straight it played its tropes.

Anti-American Eagle:I want to say the film version of Starship Troopers is good Satire. But, the problem is that it has dragged the name of the book down. Verhoeven hadn't finished the book, and I can only guess that he asked some one who had for a synopsis, looked up controversy about it and decided to parody it.

So instead of philosophical ideas bound in science fiction to make it palatable, we ended up with an action comedy that used basic plot points, controversy, and exaggeration to parody it. When I look back at it I also see it satirizing similar films as well.

I just thought it was just a bad Sci-Fi adaption at the time I first saw it, it wouldn't be the first. When I need something bad to laugh at I usually end up watching it, and that's pretty much its legacy for alot of other people I know.

Otherwise... Wait, while I'm thinking it. Are there actually people who didn't realize that Lollipop chainsaw was a joke?

Paul Verhoeven spent his childhood under German occupation in Holland, surrounded by the the real effects of German militarism and Nazi superiority laws. Its not very surprising that he chose satirise a book that recommends the restriction of voting rights to the military and licenses to have children.

I think this article overlooks many genuine problems with Lollipop Chainsaw.

Firstly, you can't really argue for mediocre game mechanics as a plus. If I'm going to spend hours playing a game, then I want it to be responsive and intuitive and fun to play. Lollipop Chainsaw had shallow, janky gameplay, and that means that on a fundemantal level, the game fails. The combat in LC simply isn't very good. That means that, on a fundamental level, a large proportion of the game isn't very good. When you're required to sink multiple hours into it, instead of a film's usual 1-2, then that makes a difference. Two hours of Rocky Horror is fine. Twelve hours of Rocky Horror would be torture.

Secondly, I disagree entirely with the idea of Juliet Starling as an effective satire of sexualised females. Maybe that was what Suda 51 and James Gunn intended, but in that case I think the character failed in spite of their intentions. It takes more to satirise a phenomenon like sexualisation than making a regular sexy character, then occasionally going 'LOL tits!'

I'm going to compare Lollipop Chainsaw to a game I think does do a phenomenal job on both points: Bayonetta.

Firstly, Bayonetta is a much more effective satire of sexualisation. While at first glance she looks like a straight faced piece of objectification, the game actually does a remarkable job of spinning that on its head. People have already written extensively about just how Bayonetta effectively subverts expectations of sexualisation, so I won't ramble too long here. But to try and summarise, everything from the way the character was designed (more emphasis on torso and legs than tits and ass, a rare occurrence in female design), to the way that when Bayonetta is naked is also when she is at her most powerful and able to destroy her enemies (also the fact that you never really see 'anything' due to clever camera angles anyway), to the way that her so called kinky Climax Attacks are actually subverted versions of torture methods actually used by organisations like the Spanish Inquisition against so called 'witches' back in history.

Then there's the fact that the gameplay in Bayonetta is really, really, really really good. It's not hard to put forward the idea of Bayonetta as a strong, independent, kick-ass woman when the game lets you destroy enemies with combat that feels incredibly refined and polished. The fluidity of the gameplay reinforces the idea of Bayonetta as a woman who can happily look after herself and kick the shit out of anyone who tries to stand in her way.

This is the thing: in terms of tone, Bayonetta is definitely in 'So bad its good' territory. But in terms of gameplay, it's flat out good. Amazing even. Whereas Lollipop Chainsaw goes for a trashy sort of tone, but then has completely bland mechanics underneath it to try and prop that up.

So bad they're good movies are usually creative. They usually reach for some outlandish goal and fall short, and the ensuing triainwreck is fun to watch (Shoot 'em Up, anyone?)

Video games, especially triple A games don't even know what "Creativity" is so if any game happens to have a creative idea or mechanic it's the best thing ever regardless of quality of execution. (Mirror's Edge, anyone?)

The games that fall in the "Comparable Quality Spectrum" as so bad it's good movies are your Gears of War's and your Metal of Honor's, your Dragon Age 2's and Dishonored's

Games that fail because they play it too safe. Trying is tantamount to succeeding in the game's industry, and yet so few people try.

I don't agree on your examples of B - movies.I mean: Expendables, seriously?!B - movies are great because they're a good kind of bad. They're not simply bad, but they are funny because they have stupid character's, nonsensical plot - twists and everything else is over the top. Stuff that would be bad in a lot of movies but just works perfectly together. Movies like brain dead, army of dead, or, for a more recent example, John dies at the end.That what i would call a B-movie. Not Satire movie's like American Pie or just movies with a stupid plot like Expendables (Ugh).

Before the industry can have so-bad-it's-good, we need to have serious story telling be the norm. Until then, Lollipop Chainsaw simply a subpar game that meets the norm in every way. Oversexualization is the norm; zombies are the norm; etc. It does nothing different and brings nothing new to the table. It is the epitome of mediocre. If anything, I'd call "Blood Dragon" the B movie of video games due to the genius advertising and the middle-finger-button.

This article also misunderstands why people like bad movies. Nobody likes something because it's bad. That is a stupid thing to do. Instead people find some entertainment value out of the movie that wasn't originally intended. It's like watching "The Room" to laugh at the acting or "Tokyo Gore Police" to laugh at how the silliness is played straight.

Amaror:I don't agree on your examples of B - movies.I mean: Expendables, seriously?!B - movies are great because they're a good kind of bad. They're not simply bad, but they are funny because they have stupid character's, nonsensical plot - twists and everything else is over the top. Stuff that would be bad in a lot of movies but just works perfectly together. Movies like brain dead, army of dead, or, for a more recent example, John dies at the end.That what i would call a B-movie. Not Satire movie's like American Pie or just movies with a stupid plot like Expendables (Ugh).

A bad plot does not make a bad movie.

I suppose I have to be the one to defend The Expendables.

Going into the movie, me and my friends all agreed the same thing: if there is more than 30 seconds straight of plot exposition at any point, the movie is a failure. The entire point was to watch Terry Crews, Randy Couture, Sly Stallone, Dolph Lundgren and Steve Austin blow some stuff up with huge weapons while Jet Li and Jason Statham exchange one-liners kicking people. Sight and spectacle over Oscar Bait. And it did that perfectly well. If you went into the movie expecting Saving Private Ryan, you were going to be disappointed. But if you went in expecting an over-the-top action movie from 1987, you got what you came for.

Going into the movie, me and my friends all agreed the same thing: if there is more than 30 seconds straight of plot exposition at any point, the movie is a failure. The entire point was to watch Terry Crews, Randy Couture, Sly Stallone, Dolph Lundgren and Steve Austin blow some stuff up with huge weapons while Jet Li and Jason Statham exchange one-liners kicking people. Sight and spectacle over Oscar Bait. And it did that perfectly well. If you went into the movie expecting Saving Private Ryan, you were going to be disappointed. But if you went in expecting an over-the-top action movie from 1987, you got what you came for.

You know, i get that. I never expected the movie to have a awesome plot or anything.I don't need an AWESOME plot.What i need in a movie is at least SOMETHING.As long as there's action, it at least needs to make sense. And i am not talking about some minor plot - hole that happens in nearly every movie.The entire basis for the finale is pretty broken.

It's a shame that the media and even people who identify themselves as gamers hold double standards for video games and what can be presented. Movies, comic books, literature, and classical art can celebrate its freedom by putting whatever it wants for its intended audience and the inclusion of mature content is almost always done tastefully, to make an artistic point, and/or because the tone dictates it. It's as if the golden rule of, "If you're that sensitive to this mature content, maybe you should not be watching/reading/viewing it," doesn't apply to video games. And with video games fighting to gain recognition as an artistic medium, the double standards in play dictate that it will only get that respect if it relinquishes its freedom to be absurd or graphic in any varying degree (despite having a rating system) just to avoid potentially offending someone who ignored the label or doesn't respect the intent of the work. Meanwhile every other artistic medium enjoy those privileges, some even without a rating label so if you do complain, you'll be laughed at or told politely that this artistic piece is just not for you.

And so with all that said, that's the real reason why video games can't have so bad it's good/brilliant or accept over-the-top and absurdity. Although part of it has to do with publisher restrictions and people who identify themselves as gamers not willing to accept anything that deviates from the norm, it all comes back to the wrong people's reactions to graphical content, sexuality, and tone given majority rule and merit instead of finding something that suits them. That's also why we're seeing so little variety compared to ten+ years ago where someone could easily find something that appeals to them instead of now where every release has to face the spotlight which normally wouldn't be a bad thing; but, if it doesn't have maximum appeal and maybe has a bit too much mature content than the insufferably sensitive general audiences would like, it's over criticized than it should and can sometimes become taboo. The general audience has become the only audience, no work can be respected for what it is, and its intended audience will be shamed for liking it and labeled a creep or whatever.

I'm just glad that japanese developers carry on the freedom of putting whatever they like in video games and even in some cases include western imagery, celebrating it with a fun and ultimately benign over the top style and purpose. How sad is that where western based developers can't celebrate its own culture if it has too much graphical content, sexuality, and unconventional tones for the undeserving masses? I guess Japan and other markets will have to do that for the west until things change. Generally japanese culture tends to be less prudish so their games tend to get censored just so it can appear on western stores but if it still has content that ticks off over-sensitive western audiences, its then critically panned and labeled taboo. No wonder why most japanese companies don't feel like putting up with these unnecessary complaints and rather not bring it here when the complaints can all be answered the same, "If you're that sensitive to this mature content, maybe you should not be playing it and let everyone else enjoy it." You will never hear that from the western gaming industry until things change and artistic vision is protected from double standards.

When I think "So bad it's good", I don't think of mediocre movies like The Expendables. Lollipop Chainsaw and Shadows of the Damned are probably better compared to bad-but-good movies like Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, of which they share a similar genre. However, just because the plot of Lollipop Chainsaw and Shadows of the Damned are tongue-in-cheek does not excuse the gameplay being repetitive. That's not "so bad it's good". It's "so mediocre I'm tired of playing".

I think it's easier to appreciate "so bad it's good" in flawed video game engines. The most memorable moments of Skyrim, for instance, might include a horse that hits a bump and flies off into the sky to zoom around at ludicrous speeds with its oblivious rider, or a giant who smashes a bandit so hard they fly off thousands of feet into the sky before crashing down and bouncing like rubber on impact. Or you have a whole game based on irrational physics like QWOP or Surgeon Simulator 2013. It gives you something to talk about that's unique to games as a medium.

Interesting article, and I completely agree that Suda51 is a great example of such games - except Killer7, that was just absolute fridge brilliance - but why does it seem so many people at the Escapist rag on The Expendables movies? MovieBob does this a lot too - did Sly Stallone spam the site once or something? I really like the Expendables films personally.

He's like current Gainax; Just make it crazy and go real fast and people will love it regardless. Cuz quirky for the sake of quirky is the new black. See also the anime, Redline.

What makes Verhoeven satire work is that it's ridiculous, yet still mingles in with the overall setting. It doesn't leap out at you going "See what I did there?" Suda51 is as blunt as can be, because that's apparently what's necessary to be satirical in todays industry. And it's a problem with games ingeneral; Lack of subtlety. Everything must be screamed at the player and shoved in their faces, cause god forbid they might actually have to figure certain things out for themselves.

But then I already found it odd that this article decided to focus on Lollipop Chainsaw, instead of, say, Metal Gear Solid, or Resident Evil 4; much better and stable examples of mad genius games.

Personally, I loved lollipop chainsaw and the combat didn't get boring to me. Particularly once you've gotten all the moves, I found a fun satisfaction in trying to get decent Sparkle Hunting numbers and such.Maybe it's just because I'm not playing the game from a male fantasy view, but I found Juliet and Nick to both be an interesting and funny characters. They may not be...(struggles to think of video game example of good characters)...the Prince and Princess from Prince of Persia? Whatever. The idea is, despite having elements of charicatures in them, they go well beyond that starting point in my opinion. The little touches of , and the other characters are fun appearences too. Rosalind for example "Dreams to meet Justin Beiber...and add his skull to her collection". That on top of the typical fun musical symbolism of the various Dark Purveyors.

I honestly would argue that the game isn't "so bad it's good", which is such a misleading and loaded term. I'd say that Big Rigs over the Road Racing is so bad it's good, Lollipop Chainsaw just has a touch of deliberate cheese. (I suppose one could say a style that is a homage to B-movies, or that's tongue-in-cheek or something else like that.) It doesn't TRY or WANT to be complicated but at the same time it actually feels more fleshed out to me than many things that are trying so hard to be complicated or deep. Ugh, hard to describe.

So, yeah, the gameplay isn't perfect, Suda51 has always and will always have that problem.But that doesn't get in the way for me, the novel experience is more than enough to still lead to a fun experience.

Edit: Doesn't help that even with him being pretty damn straightforward with it, some people still miss the point. Relatedly, Shadows of the Damned has the VERY BEST romance I have ever seen in any game and a hell (ha) of a lot better than most movies.

Anti-American Eagle:I want to say the film version of Starship Troopers is good Satire. But, the problem is that it has dragged the name of the book down. Verhoeven hadn't finished the book, and I can only guess that he asked some one who had for a synopsis, looked up controversy about it and decided to parody it.

He just read the beginning of it and then put it down saying it was 'too boring'.